Wednesday, June 30, 2004

Iraqis give thanks

Following the formal handover of sovereignty to Baghdad, 15 Iraqi and Iraqi-American groups have issued an open letter to the American people, thanking them for the sacrifices they endured to liberate their country.

The letter will be delivered to President Bush at the White House today and published in a full page ad in USA Today.

"Just as we mourn for the victims of Saddam's regime, we also grieve for the Americans and Iraqis who were killed or injured during the liberation or by terrorists determined to hold us back," the letter reads. "We will honor those who have sacrificed for our freedom by building a new Iraq that lives in peace with the nations of the world, without fear of war, torture chambers or terrorism."

This is why we did what we did folks. Not for the thinks, although it is nice to recieve that, but because these people are yearning for a new way of life, and that is what we've given them. If you have any doubts about how the Iraqi people feel, go buy a USA Today.

Just for laughs

NEW YORK - Al Sharpton , who failed in his last bid for a new job — president of the United States — now has a job on a reality TV show that guides people on career makeovers. Spike TV, the Viacom cable channel that targets a young male audience, said Sharpton will host "I Hate My Job," premiering in the fall.

"I like the concept of trying to have people discover their purpose in life, and not have the world define them or settle for less than who they want to be just to pay their bills," Sharpton said Tuesday.

The eight male contestants in the show will quit their jobs and work with two "life counselors," Sharpton and California psychologist Stephanie Raye, who will give them advice and weekly assignments. A panel will decide which contestants will continue each week.

"Reverend Sharpton came from a modest upbringing and became a major political force and presidential candidate," said Kevin Kay, Spike's executive vice president for programming. "He's lived the American dream so he's the perfect person for our eight contestants to learn from."

Does Al Sharpton even have a job? All I have ever seen him do is run for president and talk.

Saddam to be turned over to Iraq

BAGHDAD -- Saddam Hussein and up to a dozen top members of his regime will formally be turned over to Iraqi legal authorities today, although they will remain in the physical custody of U.S. and other foreign soldiers.
The former dictator is to appear before a judge tomorrow to be formally charged with some of the most grievous crimes in any law book.
A day after the transfer of political authority to Iraqis -- which had been advanced by two days over fears of security -- Iraq remained relatively calm, but three U.S. Marines were killed in a roadside bomb attack in Baghdad.
Prime Minister Iyad Allawi, who was sworn in at a secret ceremony Monday, yesterday announced that Saddam and the other "high value detainees" would lose their POW status and be indicted under Iraqi law.
"This government has formally requested the transfer of the most notorious and high profile detainees," he told reporters here, as Justice Minister Malik Dohan al-Hassan stood beside him.
"These people ... will face justice before the special Iraqi court created in January to trymembers of the former regime for crimes against humanity, genocide and war crimes," he said.

Another good thing happening in Iraq. I keep hearing people say that this is wrong, that he should be tried by the International court. While a agree that Saddam Hussein did indeed break international laws, I have to say that most of his crimes were commited against the Iraqi peopleand they should be the ones to try him.

Tuesday, June 29, 2004

I know what I said

I know I said I wasn't going to post on the Iraq situation, and, I'm really not but, I did want to talk about some of the comments made by those on the left side of the aisle.

Let's start with possibly the next president, that's John Kerry if you didn't know, he never actually says anything to stand out so, I know some may not have heard of him.

"I believe it is critical that the president get real support -- not resolutions, not words -- but real support of sufficient personnel, troops and money to assist in the training of security forces"

Well first Mr.We must go to the U.N., it takes words and resolutions to get the U.N. to do anything, yes, I know. More to the point, in his visit to Turkey Bush got the leaders of the alliance to agree to train the military, security and police forces of the new Iraqi government. OOPS, someone should read him a paper once in a while.

He also had the gaul to complain that not enough money that was voted for was being spent. So, the money he didn't vote for is being spent in a way he doesn't like. Shut up.

He then complained that the support we receive from our NATO allies isn't real. Please excuse what i'm about to say but, what a dickhead. This man talks about getting more help then says the help we get isn't real? God!

Let's move on from him, he makes my head hurt.

Now, we'll see what Mr.aaaaaaaaaaaaaaarg, I mean Dean, has to say.
"We still don't know whether the Iraqi people are better off or not,"

Are you kidding me? If nothing else, an evil dic-tator is gone, he and his sons are no longer shreading people, raping women and puting children in prison. They also are going to vote for their first government in over 30 years. Please tell me he was making a joke.

I was going to do more on this but, I think you folks get the point.

What happened yesterday was a good thing. A country is now free and very soon will hold elections. They have control of all departments of that country. How on earth can people not see that this is a good thing?

Monday, June 28, 2004

Supreme Court ruling

I was going to post on this but,Dale, over at QandO does a much better job.

The Iraqi turnover

I know the turnover happened today but, I want to wait a few days before I comment on it. I would rather see what happens over the next few days than to mouth off and be wrong.

This is a problem?

VANCOUVER, British Columbia (Reuters) - Canadians went to the polls in a federal election on Monday with a firm warning from election officials: Please do not eat your ballots.

"Eating a ballot, not returning it or otherwise destroying or defacing it constitutes a serious breach of the Canada Elections Act," Elections Canada warns on its Internet site.

I know we had some problems with our ballots here in Florida in the last election but, I don't think anyone actually ate their ballot.
The issue was of sufficient concern to warrant inclusion in the site's "Frequency asked Questions" section, above answers to such inquiries as "Why should I vote?" and "Am I registered?"

Three Alberta men were charged with eating their paper ballots during Canada's last federal election, in 2000. The members of the Edible Ballot Society were protesting against what they said was a lack of real choice among candidates.

Fact check

Fahrenheit Fact is debunking Moores movie as fast as he can. If you have seen or want to see the movie, check him out.

Political correctness to the extreme

Israeli-made bullets recently purchased by the U.S. Army should be used for training only, not to fight Muslim guerrillas in Iraq and Afghanistan, U.S. lawmakers told Army generals.

Since the Army has other stockpiled ammunition, "by no means, under any circumstances should a round [from Israel] be utilized," said Rep. Neil Abercrombie of Hawaii, the top Democrat on the House of Representatives Armed Services subcommittee with jurisdiction over land forces.

Have you ever?
Rep. Curt Weldon of Pennsylvania, who chairs the subcommittee on tactical air and land forces, concurred with Abercrombie, explaining that although the Army should not have to worry about "political correctness," there are still "propaganda pitfalls" of using Israeli rounds in the U.S.-declared war on terror.

"Propaganda pitfalls"? So now we have to worry about what people think about the ammo we use? Don't these people have more to do than bother with garbage like this?

Saturday, June 26, 2004


A saucy new dipping sauce billing itself as "America's Ketchup" hopes to cash in on the Heinz-John Kerry connection.
"Choose Heinz and you're supporting Teresa [Heinz Kerry] and her husband's Gulfstream Jet, and liberal causes such as [Massachusetts Sen. John] Kerry for President," reads the Web site for W Ketchup, which started selling June 14. "You don't support Democrats. Why should your ketchup?"
W Ketchup focuses on themes of patriotism -- its label combines an American flag, a bald eagle and a picture of George Washington. The ketchup company will give the larger amount of either 5 percent of profits or 1 percent of sales to the Freedom Alliance Scholarship Fund. It says it uses only American ingredients.
"We did it as a way for people to show their political stripes," said W Ketchup Chairman Bill Zachary, a New York banker who describes himself as "a middle-of-the-road kind of guy."
Mr. Zachary considers his brand to be nonpartisan. He said the "W" in the brand's name stands for Washington -- not the 43rd president.
The ketchup, not yet in stores, is made and bottled by "a major company" that Mr. Zachary would not disclose. The bottles sell for $3 each (minimum four bottles per order) on the Web site; about 5,000 have been sold.
Mr. Zachary thought of the concept with a handful of friends at an April barbecue. "Every time we squeezed that bottle, we were giving a little to Teresa Heinz Kerry," he said.

The only problem with this is, Teresa Heinz Kerry only owns 4% of the company and the Heinz PAC has given almost twice as much money to republicans than democrats.

I will say this though the Freedom Alliance Scholarship Fund is a damn worthy cause. It gives scholarships to the children of those who have lost thier lives in Afganastan and Iraq.

A democrat is going to what?

In an unprecedented move, President Bush's campaign has scheduled a prominent Democrat, Sen. Zell Miller of Georgia, to make a prime-time speech to the Republican National Convention in New York.
Mr. Miller, who gave the keynote address at the 1992 Democratic convention that nominated Bill Clinton for president, has agreed to address the Republicans in prime time, possibly on Sept. 2 when the delegates will nominate Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney to head the ticket once again, confided a Republican with close ties to those planning the convention.

Yes, I know, it's Zell Miller but, he still considers himself a democrat, he just thinks his party has moved in the wrong direction. I have to say, this is a smart move, a lot of southern democrats are not all too happy with the Kerry nomination coming up and most people in the south have a great deal of respect for Zell so, this could actually bring in a few votes on Bush's side.

In a typical response the head of the Democratic National Senatorial Committee, Brad Woodhouse said ,
"I can't imagine what they hope to get out of Zell Miller -- do they really think they need help with angry white males?"

Heh, they got two out of three right, he's white and male. Zell Miller is one of the most respected members of Congress, he uses soft words, though they may have a sting, and very seldom raises his voice for anything. He is probably the least angry person I've heard on either the radio or television.

What probably has them upset are quotes like the following
"Look, John Kerry couldn't find Main Street with both hands. You can't make a chicken swim, and you can't make John Kerry anything but an out-of-touch ultraliberal from Taxachusetts,"

When you're right, you're right.

Friday, June 25, 2004

F--k you

Does Cheney telling a senator to F--k off really matter in the great scheme of things? I've been reading blogs and some groups and this is the most important thing people are talking about today.

Let me say this, I think it does show a lack of class that Cheney said this in the Senate Chambers but, who cares. This is NOT news. It is unworthy of comment, just as Kerry's comment was.

Damn, I just wasted bandwidth talking about it.

The Tree

Al Gore is at it again. He is almost to the point where he is scary. Speaking at the Georgetown University Law Center he made the following quotes.

"They dare not admit the truth lest they look like complete fools for launching our country into a reckless, discretionary war against a nation that posed no immediate threat to us whatsoever,"

This is almost laughable. Especially since:
The Clinton administration talked about firm evidence linking Saddam
Hussein's regime to Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network years before
President Bush made the same statements.
The issue arose again this month after the National Commission on
Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States reported there was no
"collaborative relationship" between the old Iraqi regime and bin

In fact, during President Clinton's eight years in office, there
were at least two official pronouncements of an alarming alliance
between Baghdad and al Qaeda. One came from William S. Cohen, Mr.
Clinton's defense secretary. He cited an al Qaeda-Baghdad link to
justify the bombing of a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan.
Mr. Bush cited the linkage, in part, to justify invading Iraq and
ousting Saddam. He said he could not take the risk of Iraq's weapons
falling into bin Laden's hands

The 1998 indictment said: "Al Qaeda also forged alliances with the
National Islamic Front in the Sudan and with the government of Iran
and its associated terrorist group Hezbollah for the purpose of
working together against their perceived common enemies in the West,
particularly the United States. In addition, al Qaeda reached an
understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work
against that government and that on particular projects, specifically
including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with
the government of Iraq."

He then went on to say.
"So when the bipartisan 9/11 commission issued its report finding 'no credible evidence' of an Iraq-al-Qaida connection, it should not have come as a surprise. It should not have caught the White House off guard."

Actually what was said was, that there was "no credible evidence" to link 9/11 and Iraq, which, as the commissiom said, no one ever said there was one. What was said was that there was no "collaborative relationship" between al-queda and Iraq.

Mr. Gore really has no place in criticising anyone, seeing that the administration he belonged to did absolutely nothing in regards to terrorism.

Thursday, June 24, 2004


I am fascinated by archaeology, i've been on a few digs, and I found this interesting.

SALT LAKE CITY - For more than 50 years, rancher Waldo Wilcox kept most outsiders off his land and the secret under wraps: a string of ancient Indian settlements so remarkably well-preserved that arrowheads and beads are still lying out in the open.

Archaeologists are calling it one of the most spectacular finds in the West.

Hidden deep inside Utah's nearly inaccessible Book Cliffs region, 130 miles from Salt Lake City, the prehistoric villages run for 12 miles and include hundreds of rock art panels, cliffside granaries, stone houses built halfway underground, rock shelters, and the mummified remains of long-ago inhabitants.

The site was occupied for at least 3,000 years until it abandoned more than 1,000 years ago, when the Fremont people mysteriously vanished.

What sets this ancient site apart from other, better-known ones in Utah, Arizona or Colorado is that it has been left virtually untouched by looters, with the ground still littered with arrowheads, arrow shafts, beads and pottery shards in places.

"It was just like walking into a different world," said Utah state archaeologist Kevin Jones, who was overcome on his first visit in 2002.

Wilcox, 74, said: "It's like being the first white man in there, the way I kept it. There's no place like it left."

Can you imagine this man keepimg this secret for 50 years? I'm glad he did, hopefully they can keep looters out and preserve the site. I'd love to go there.

Just a warning

CHICAGO - Government and industry experts warned late Thursday of a mysterious, large-scale Internet attack against thousands of popular Web sites. The virus-like infection tries to implant hacker software onto the computers of all Web site visitors.

Industry experts and the Homeland Security Department were studying the infection to determine how it spreads across Web sites and find adequate defenses against it.

"Users should be aware that any Web site, even those that may be trusted by the user, may be affected by this activity and thus contain potentially malicious code," the government warned in one Internet alert.

The mysterious infection appeared to target at least one recent version of software by Microsoft Corp. to operate Web sites, called its Internet Information Server, popular among businesses and organizations.

A spokesman for Microsoft declined to comment immediately.

Experts said the attack's effects were unusually broad but weren't substantially interfering with Internet traffic.

"While this is significant, it has no impact on the operation of the Internet," said Marcus Sachs, who helps run the industry's Internet Storm Center in Bethesda, Md.

Experts urgently recommended consumers and corporate employees to update the antivirus software on their computers, since the latest versions can immunize visitors to infected Web sites.

The infected Web sites attempt to implant on visitors' computers hacker software that allows others to use their computers to surreptitiously route Internet spam e-mails.

McCain-Feingold rears it's ugly head

This serves the democrats right. I honestly think it's a bad idea for the 527 to file a complaint on this, it may come back to haunt them.

Michael Moore may be prevented from advertising his controversial new movie, “Fahrenheit 9/11,” on television or radio after July 30 if the Federal Election Commission (FEC) today accepts the legal advice of its general counsel.

At the same time, a Republican-allied 527 soft-money group is preparing to file a complaint against Moore’s film with the FEC for violating campaign-finance law.

Wednesday, June 23, 2004

Bush abuse order

1. Our recent extensive discussions regarding the status of al-Qaida and Taliban detainees confirm that the application of Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of August 12, 1949, (Geneva) to the conflict with al-Qaida and the Taliban involves complex legal questions. By its terms, Geneva applies to conflicts involving "High Contracting Parties," which can only be states. Moreover, it assumes the existence of "regular" armed forces fighting on behalf of states. However, the war against terrorism ushers in a new paradigm, one in which groups with broad, international reach commit horrific acts against innocent civilians, sometimes with the direct support of states. Our nation recognizes that this new paradigm — ushered in not by us, but by terrorists — requires new thinking in the law of war, but thinking that should nevertheless be consistent with the principles of Geneva.

This is simple enough. Al-Queda and the Taliban are not "High Contracting Parties" hence, they do not fall under the title of POWs. The last part of this statement is also correct, we are dealing with a new kind of fighter and new rules may be needed to deeal with them.
2.Pursuant to my authority as commander in chief and chief executive of the United States, and relying on the opinion of the Department of Justice (news - web sites) dated January 22, 2002, and on the legal opinion rendered by the attorney general in his letter of February 1, 2002, I hereby determine as follows:

a.. I accept the legal conclusion of the Department of Justice and determine that none of the provisions of Geneva apply to our conflict with al-Qaida in Afghanistan (news - web sites) or elsewhere throughout the world because, among other reasons, al-Qaida is not a High Contracting Party to Geneva.

As I said above, this makes sense, these aren't soldiers fighting for a government, they are a group of people fighting for an ideal. They are not covered under Geneva.
b. I accept the legal conclusion of the attorney general and the Department of Justice that I have the authority under the Constitution to suspend Geneva as between the United States and Afghanistan, but I decline to exercise that authority at this time. Accordingly, I determine that the provisions of Geneva will apply to our present conflict with the Taliban. I reserve the right to exercise the authority in this or future conflicts.

Okay, he accepts that he has authority to suspend Geneva but declines to do so and even though the fighters aren't "High Contracting Parties", he gives them status under Geneva. He also reserves the right to change this in the future.
c. I also accept the legal conclusion of the Department of Justice and determine that common Article 3 of Geneva does not apply to either al-Qaida or Taliban detainees, because, among other reasons, the relevant conflicts are international in scope and common Article 3 applies only to "armed conflict not of an international character."

Again, understandable, we have over 40 nations involved with the War on Terror so, it is international in scope. The first sentence of Article 3 reads as follows:
In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties

d. Based on the facts supplied by the Department of Defense (news - web sites) and the recommendation of the Department of Justice, I determine that the Taliban detainees are unlawful combatants and, therefore, do not qualify as prisoners of war under Article 4 of Geneva. I note that, because Geneva does not apply to our conflict with al-Qaida, al-Qaida detainees also do not qualify as prisoners of war.

In other words, the Taliban and Al-Queda do not qualify as Pows.
3.. Of course, our values as a nation, values that we share with many nations in the world, call for us to treat detainees humanely, including those who are not legally entitled to such treatment. Our nation has been and will continue to be a strong supporter of Geneva and its principles. As a matter of policy, the United States Armed Forces shall continue to treat detainees humanely and, to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity, in a manner consistent with the principles of Geneva.

Again, even though those fighters don't qualify as POWs, they will be treated as such because of what this country believes.
4. The United States will hold states, organizations, and individuals who gain control of United States personnel responsible for treating such personnel humanely and consistent with applicable law.

If we hold ourselves to the standards of Geneva, we expect others to do the same with our captured soldiers.
5. I hereby reaffirm the order previously issued by the secretary of defense to the United States Armed Forces requiring that the detainees be treated humanely and, to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity, in a manner consistent with the principles of Geneva.

6. I hereby direct the secretary of state to communicate my determinations in an appropriate manner to our allies, and other countries and international organizations cooperating in the war against terrorism of global reach.

So, he ordered the Armed Forces to treat prisoners humanely and to tell our allies that.

Can someone please tell me what is wrong with any of this?

Tuesday, June 22, 2004

Moore and terrorists

The company distributing filmmaker Michael Moore's Bush-bashing movie "Fahrenheit 9/11" says it won't reject an offer of help from Middle East terrorist organization Hezbollah.

As WorldNetDaily reported, terrorists affiliated with the Iran-backed network last week offered to help promote the film in the United Arab Emirates.

The movie industry publication Screen Daily reported, "In terms of marketing the film, [distributor] Front Row is getting a boost from organizations related to Hezbollah which have rung up from Lebanon to ask if there's anything they can do to support the film."

The story then quotes Front Row Managing Director Gianluca Chacra: "We can't go against these organizations as they could strongly boycott the film in Lebanon and Syria."

Can you believe this?

It's all Ken Starrs fault

9-11 Ken Starr’s fault? On NBC’s Meet the Press, after endorsing Bill Clinton’s disgust for Ken Starr (“He makes a very strong case for Starr’s abuse of power”) and agreeing with Clinton’s view of himself more as victim than perpetrator (“My feeling is, that in the end on all this stuff he’s more sinned against than sinner”), Time magazine’s Joe Klein gave credibility to Clinton’s claim that but for the Lewinsky scandal Clinton would have fired FBI Director Louis Freeh, who had proven incompetent in the battle against terrorism. Klein suggested “we might have had a better shot at rolling up those al-Qaeda cells if Bill Clinton had been free to fire Freeh.”

Talk about funny. So, because Starr was investigating Clinton, Clinton couldn't fire Freeh?

In Time itself, Klein called Clinton’s case against Starr “powerful.”

On Meet the Press, recalling Time’s interview conducted last week with Clinton, upon the release of his lengthy tome, My Life, Klein picked up on a finding of the 9-11 Commission about Freeh’s supposed poor job on counter-terrorism and expounded, during a roundtable segment:
“One of the other things that Clinton told us was that he would have fired Louis Freeh as FBI Director if it hadn't been for the media and for the fact that we would have associated that firing with the investigation of the Lewinsky scandal. Now, that is incredibly damning because from what I can understand, the FBI was entirely incompetent, not doing anything in terms of counter-terrorism over those years. And so in some ways, you could say that we might have had a better shot at rolling up those al-Qaeda cells if Bill Clinton had been free to fire Freeh.”

Wait a minute, Starr is blamed because Clinton didn't want to be embarrased?

On why he never fired FBI Director Louis Freeh

If I had known that when we tripled the counterterrorism funds none of it was put into improving the data processing and interconnecting with the CIA and other intelligence agencies, if I had known that the Executive Order I signed fairly early in my Administration ordering the CIA and the FBI to exchange high-level people and cooperate more hadn't been done, I might have done so.

Interpretation "Because I was geting a blowjob, I couldn't take the time to make sure that the CIA and FBI were doing thier jobs"

But since the FBI chief gets a presumptive 10-year term, I didn't feel what I thought was outrageous treatment of us, particularly by him personally, was worth replacing him, because all of you [in the media] would have said, Well, he's doing it because he's got something to hide, and I didn't have anything to hide. I knew there was nothing to Whitewater, I knew there was nothing to the Paula Jones case -- Ken Starr could have as many FBI agents as he wanted doing whatever they wanted to do.


Thursday, June 17, 2004

Diplomats and Military Commanders for Change

27 former diplomats and Military men and women decided they didn't like the way Bush was handling the country so, they held a press conference, let's see what they had to say.

The undersigned have held positions of responsibility for the planning and execution of American foreign and defense policy. Collectively, we have served every president since Harry S. Truman. Some of us are Democrats, some are Republicans or Independents, many voted for George W. Bush. But we all believe that current Administration policies have failed in the primary responsibilities of preserving national security and providing world leadership. Serious issues are at stake. We need a change.

From the outset, President George W. Bush adopted an overbearing approach to America's role in the world,

This is actually new. According to the democrats, Bush did nothing up to 9/11.
relying upon military might and righteousness,

Let's see, the Twin Towers were attacked, the Pentagon was attacked and, according to the 9/11 commissions report, 10 other planes were meant to be used, we went into Afganastan, took out the Taliban, chased OBL into a mountain. We also took a cruel dic-tator out of power and we're puting a country into a far better place than it has ever been. Yep, military might and righteousness.
insensitive to the concerns of traditional friends and allies

Concerns? They must mean that our traditional allies and friends were afraid of the money they were going to lose. Plus, the more the Oil for Food program is looked into, the worse it's looking for some of those friends and allies.
and disdainful of the United Nations.

We went to the U.N. and got a resolution, 1441, that resolution called for compliance on the part of Iraq or "serious consequences" would occur. Anyone with even the slightest understanding of diplomacy knows that "serious consequences" means military action. That part of the Security Council decided not to go in, isn't our problem because, Resolution 1441 also said "any member state" could take action. Saddam Hussein decided to play chicken and lost.
Instead of building upon America's great economic and moral strength to lead other nations in a coordinated campaign to address the causes of terrorism and to stifle its resources

In an earlier post, I said that hate was what caused this. I'll ask again, how do you understand hate? AS for stifling terrorism, most of OBL's top people are dead or in jail, pretty stifling to me.
motivated more by ideology than by reasoned analysis, struck out on its own.

I'm sure the 40 other nations that either took part in or helped in Iraq just love hearing this.
It led the United States into an ill-planned and costly war from which exit is uncertain. It justified the invasion of Iraq by manipulation of uncertain intelligence about weapons of mass destruction, and by a cynical campaign to persuade the public that Saddam Hussein was linked to Al Qaeda and the attacks of September 11. The evidence did not support this argument.
I'm sorry but, aren't there military men in this group? If so, please tell me when Intel is EVER certain. Wmb's, he had them, where are they, it was his job to prove he didn't have them and this garbage that you can't prove a negative is just that, garbage. If he destroyed them, there would be records, we asked to see them, he wouldn't show them. Breach of resolution.
Our security has been weakened. While American airmen and women, marines, soldiers and sailors have performed gallantly, our armed forces were not prepared for military occupation and nation building. Public opinion polls throughout the world report hostility toward us. Muslim youth are turning to anti-American terrorism. Never in the two and a quarter centuries of our history has the United States been so isolated among the nations, so broadly feared and distrusted. No loyal American would question our ultimate right to act alone in our national interest; but responsible leadership would not turn to unilateral military action before diplomacy had been thoroughly explored.

The part of this paragraph that catches my eye is "Muslim youth are turning to anti-American terrorism." Have these folks ever listened or read Al-Jezeera? The Ayatolas preach hate. This isn't something that just happened, it has been ongoing for decades and as diplomats, these people should know that.

The rest of the paragraph is a hoot. We are in no way "isolated". We have more than 4 dozen countries actively supporting us. that's "isolated"? And again, that word unilateral, how 40 is unilateral, I'll never know. As for diplomacy being explored, 12 years 19 resolutions, that's all I'll say.
The United States suffers from close identification with autocratic regimes in the Muslim world, and from the perception of unquestioning support for the policies and actions of the present Israeli Government. To enhance credibility with Islamic peoples we must pursue courageous, energetic and balanced efforts to establish peace between Israelis and Palestinians, and policies that encourage responsible democratic reforms.

We have, for more than 3 decades, tried to help with the peace between Israel and the Palestinians, the Palestinains, at every turn, have decided that bombing civilians is the best way to do things. If they want to be taken seriously, they need to act like it and stop pl;acing all the blame on Israel, not that Israel isn't to blame for some of thier actions.
We face profound challenges in the 21st Century: proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, unequal distribution of wealth and the fruits of globalization, terrorism, environmental degradation, population growth in the developing world, HIV/AIDS, ethnic and religious confrontations. Such problems can not be resolved by military force, nor by the sole remaining superpower alone; they demand patient, coordinated global effort under the leadership of the United States.

The Bush Administration has shown that it does not grasp these circumstances of the new era, and is not able to rise to the responsibilities of world leadership in either style or substance. It is time for a change.

Oh, We're supposed to police the world, WMB's. Be socialist, give others money away, by force. Do something about terrorism, except use the military. Give condoms to the world. Do something about AIDS, oops, we already have. Keep nuts from killing eachother, ask the U.N. about Rwanda and several other African nations.

We have and do, do these things. These people act like all we have done is use the military. They really should have done some reading before making this statement. While I in know way support all the things Bush has done, I do think he is doing a fairly good job when it comes to world affairs. As I've said before, the fact that we are the only remaining super power makes it our responsibility to do more, we are but, there comes a time when a doing needs to be done bu the other nations, we've reached that time.

Monday, June 14, 2004

Red Cross "Let Saddam go"

Yes, you did read that right.

Saddam Hussein must either be released from custody by June 30 or charged if the United States and the new Iraqi government are to conform to international law, the International Committee of the Red Cross said Sunday according to a report by The Guardian.

Nada Doumani, a spokeswoman for the ICRC, told The Guardian, "The US defines Saddam Hussein as a prisoner of war. At the end of an occupation Prisoners of War have to be released provided they have no penal charges against them."

Doumani's comments came as the international body, the only independent group with access to detainees in US custody, becomes increasingly concerned over the legal limbo in which thousands of people are being held in the run-up to the transfer of power at the end of the month.

How interesting. Isn't the Red Cross the orginization worried about human rights? Now, they want to let a human monster go because it goes against International Law. Another orginization I'll write off my books. Idiots

An apology

Mike Adams has a thought provoking piece over at Townhall.

Dear Arabs,

I am truly sorry that Americans decided to take up arms and sacrifice their own youth in the defense of Muslims in Bosnia, Kosovo, and the first Gulf War. After we clear up this mess in Iraq, we will refrain from any such activity in the future.

I am truly sorry that I did not hear any of you call for an apology from Muslim extremists after 911. After all, the hijackers were all Arabs.

I am truly sorry that Arabs have to live in squalor under savage dictatorships throughout the Middle East. I am also sorry that the “leaders” of these nations drive their citizens into poverty by keeping all of the wealth in the hands of a select few.

Go read the rest here.

The U.N is not happy

Although this story comes from Newsmax, who isn't always the most reliable source, I do find this story interesting.

If what is said is accurate, there is going to be one hell of a backlash against them. Some of the things this book, Emergency Sex and Other Desperate Measures, talks about are as follows:

Drug taking and excessive drinking by U.N. personnel in Cambodia and other peacekeeping venues was common.

"Peacekeepers" sent by Bulgaria to serve in Cambodia were in reality prison convicts and psychiatric ward patients.

Details of a cover up by a senior U.N. official of an ambush of a U.N. convoy in Mogadishu, Somalia.

A demanded kickback of some salary from U.N. employees to their supervisors.

An allegation that U.N. chief Kofi Annan personally suppressed a report (1994) warning of an impending massacre in the African nation of Rwanda. At the time, Annan directed U.N. peacekeeping affairs.

More than 800,000 people in Rwanda and neighboring Burundi eventually lost their lives according to the International Committee of the Red Cross in Geneva.

If this is true, on top of the Food for Oil scandal, I can see why the U.N. wouldn't want this book to come out.

For those of us who already think the only use of the U.N. is as a debate society, this just puts more pieces into place. For those who think it is the end all and be all of International Law, maybe this will open thier eyes.

Sunday, June 13, 2004

Blog note

Sorry to have disappeared the past few days. Friday was my birthday and I've been trying to fight an ear infection that won't go away. I'll look around now and see what we can talk about.

Wednesday, June 09, 2004

Oh, the waste

100 million dollars over six years. There is a saying, the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing, in this case, I think both hands were stuck up someones backside.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Defense Department spent an estimated $100 million for airline tickets that were not used over a six-year period and failed to seek refunds even though the tickets were reimbursable, congressional investigators say.

The department compounded the problem by reimbursing employee claims for tickets bought by the Pentagon, the investigators said.

To demonstrate how easy it was to have the Pentagon pay for airline travel, the investigators posed as Defense employees, had the department generate a ticket and showed up at the ticket counter to pick up a boarding pass.

Congress' General Accounting Office issued the findings in two reports on the Pentagon's lack of control over airline travel, copies of which The Associated Press obtained Tuesday. A prior report, issued last November, found that the Pentagon bought 68,000 first-class or business-class airline seats for employees who should have flown coach.

"At a time when our soldiers are patrolling the streets of Iraq in unarmored Humvees, and when the Bush Administration is asking for record Defense spending, Secretary (Donald H.) Rumsfeld is letting hundreds of millions of dollars that could be used to protect our troops and our country go to waste," said Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Illinois, one of three lawmakers who ordered the studies.

The GAO estimated that between 1997 and 2003, the Defense Department bought at least $100 million in tickets that were not used or used only partially by a passenger who did not complete all legs of a flight. The waste went undetected because the department relied on individuals to report the unused tickets. They did not do so.

The Defense Department said in a written statement that it is working to ensure it receives credit in the future for each unused ticket.

"We take this deficiency in our procedures very seriously and are moving swiftly to establish proper management controls. The long-term answer will be the automated Defense Travel System (DTS) that controls the travel order and payment process from beginning to end," the statement said.

"DOD is researching the data presented in the GAO report and will continue to pursue the amounts we determine are recoupable."

Reagan funeral

I just finished watching the funeral procession and I have to admit, there were a few times that tears came to my eyes. Every time the camera panned to Nancy, I couldn't help but feel intense sorrow. The love these two people shared is so uncommon these days, it makes you wonder if it's even possible anymore.

You almost have to laugh though when you think about Reagan. He hated pageantry. He couldn't stand when Hail To The Chief or Ruffles and Flourishes was played. You can almost see him looking down, shaking his head.

Having been a part of an honor guard on a couple of occasions, I have to say that the gentlemen of this honor guard did a wonderful job. It isn't an easy duty but, believe me, it is very much an honor, and they performed perfectly.

On Friday, President Reagan will be laid to his final rest. I think if he were able to give one last message to this country it would be this. Keep fighting, be strong and love.


I don't know if this is true or not but, Drudge is reporting that President Clinton is mad because he wasn't asked to speak at President Reagans funeral. Bill, this isn't about you. Seeing that you spent more than 8 years criticizing anything Reagan, why on earth would you expect to be asked to speak at his funeral? Shut up and grow up.

Rall is at it again

Political cartoonist Ted Rall's comment that the late President Ronald Reagan is "turning crispy brown right about now" provoked a reaction that crashed his Web site for at least 24 hours after the remark was posted on the Drudge Report.
"I think most people view the president as a fair target," Mr. Rall said yesterday in an interview. "Reagan was a public figure, and he was an idiot. And if he were around and lucid, he would probably say that it comes with the territory."

I agree with Rall that the president is a fair target but, the man just died Saturday and his wife of 50 years is still in mourning. A little bit of class goes a long way. Oh wait, we're talking about an idiot, I almost forgot.

Tuesday, June 08, 2004

When will they learn

McQ has a long post well worth reading on how the "main stream" media hasn't changes in 60 years.

A fitting end

Stephen goes on a rant. I'm at the point where I agree with him.

Tampa Bay Lightning

Though not much of a hockey fan, don't understand the game at all, I do want to congratulate the Lightning on their win of the Stanley Cup over the Flmaes.

Having grown up in the area, I've been used to losing teams, the Bucs couldn't win their way out of a paper bag at the time. Now, since I've moved to Northern Florida, both the Bucs and Lightning have won national championships. Who'd a thunk it?

Militas agree to disarm

The story can be found here.

Iraq's interim government yesterday announced an agreement with nine political parties to disarm their militias and integrate their fighters into the national army or civilian life.
The plan would apply to 100,000 armed fighters, three-fourths of them Kurdish soldiers known as "peshmerga" and based mainly in the north.
The agreement was rejected by Sheik Muqtada al-Sadr, whose Mahdi's Army of at least 10,000, has been battling U.S. troops in Baghdad and in predominantly Shi'ite cities since April.
The demobilization agreement was accepted by Kurdish leaders, as well as the Iraqi National Congress. Both control militias that fought alongside the U.S.-led coalition against Saddam Hussein's army during last year's invasion.
"The completion of these negotiations and issuance of this order is a watershed in establishing the rule of law," said newly appointed Prime Minister Iyad Allawi, who leads the transitional government.

This is good news. The U.S. has been trying to get this to happen for months now but, some of the militas didn't trust us.

The milita members can either join the Iraqi Army or go into civilian life. Those memeber who refuse to lay down arms will be considered illegal armed forces.

Sheik al-Sadrs group was not part of this agreement.

For those who think it's too early to turn over control of Iraq, this is proof the the Interim Government is doing a good job of it. Of course, there are going to be some tough spots, I'm sure not everything went rosy when the U.S. was in it's infancy, but, these people are working towards the betterment of Iraq as a whole.

As for al-Sadr, a lot of the Shite leaders are angry at him and the people are going to start turning on him as more reports come out about him, and these reports are from Iraqis not the U.S.

He has purposely shot at Mosques and just this past weekend a mosque was destroyed where he stored ammunition. It won't be long before the people have had enough of him and his "army".

Give it time folks, it will work out and know, we did the right thing.

Saturday, June 05, 2004

Goodbye Ronnie

I really wasn't intending on posting about President Reagan but having read some comments by the moonbats, I have to have my say.

There are some wonderful tributes out there, already and I can in no way come close to what some people are saying but, I want to tell you what Ronnie meant to me as a teenage boy.

When he first went into office I was 10 years old and didn't really care about who, or, for that matter, what a president was. My first insight was on the day he was shot. I couldn't understand why anyone would want to shoot that nice man. My parents, he was the first republican they ever voted for, tried to explain to me that there were sick people in the world who wanted to hurt others. Being 10, I said, okay, and went on with whatever it was I was doing.

As I grew older I came to realise what a strong man he was, he reminded me of my own father. He was also a gentle caring man who laughed at silly things. He was a person I could understand, and he just happened to be the leader of the free world. I remember the pride I felt when, standing by the wall, he said " Mr. Gorbachov, tear down this wall." It was the first time I truly felt any form of partiotism.

He made me understand that, although we were the most powerful country on earth, we could still use a gentleness when dealing with others. He also taught me that, sometimes, that power needs to be used.

Looking back now, there are some things I disagree with, that he did but, as a whole, he was one of the greatest presidents this country has ever had. He was a leader who understood how to lead, in a time when we needed a man who could lead.

To quote him, in part, he has " slipped the surly bonds of Earth".

God bless your great soul.

Good bye Ronnie.

The trouble with Libertarians

My political philosophy runs, mainly, along libertarian lines. Harry Browne, the 2000 nominee for the Libertarian party, wrote an article yesterday that explains why the LP doesn't do too well on a national stage, the problem, he has it backwards.

Here's the article.

After 33 years in operation, the LP presidential candidate has never received more than 1% of the vote, the party has elected less than a thousand office-holders, and currently has no one in Congress or a state legislature.

The armchair quarterbacks inside and outside the party know just what the party needs to do to reverse its fortunes. It must focus on a particular issue to the exclusion of all other topics, stage the right kind of media events, conduct a campaign that?s more "in your face," merge campaigns with another third party, tone down the message, or find a celebrity to carry the party?s banner.

If only it were so easy.

Sorry Mr. Browne but, it is that easy.

I have yet to hear anyone say that the LP should concintrate on one issue "to the exclusion of all others". What people are saying is to claim something as your own, other than pot. There are a lot of issues that everyday people care about that neither major party touches. Take one and make it a focal point while still espousing your beliefs.

The other things he brings up are worth looking at too.

"stage the right kind of media events" Well, what's wrong with that? If you want to get your message out, you have to play to the media. That's the way it is.

"conduct a campaign that?s more "in your face," Again, if you want your message heard, people have to actually hear it.

"merge campaigns with another third party" This one I don't know about. The good thing about the LP is that it has unique ideas. Merging with another third party, who may have contradictory viewpoints, isn't a smart move.

"tone down the message" The only message I think that needs to be "toned down" is the issue of marijuana. People hear this way too much and they think that it is ALL the LP stands for. Put this one on the back burner and push more of the other issues.

"or find a celebrity to carry the party?s banner." Why not? Look, and please excuse me readers, people are rather stupid when it comes to politics today. You need someone to stand in the forefront and say "hey, this is why you should vote for us". Getting a celebrity to do it is an even better move.

He goes on to give five laws, read, excuses, of why the LP can't stand up against the two big boys.
Campaign finance limits: The $2,000-per-person donation limit (formerly $1,000) works to the advantage of Republicans and Democrats. They can promise large governmental benefits to industry leaders, who in exchange will promise to collect large numbers of $2,000 donations for the candidates. We have nothing similar to offer, and so we have to raise the money one person at a time.

It seems Mr. Browne can't remember back just a few months ago to the Dean campaign. He started as a grass roots effort and gained major party support and, at first, used only small donations.
Reporting requirements: Because virtually all campaign donations must be reported, major donors can be afraid to finance anyone who challenges the existing two-party system. (The disclosure laws also inspire many wealthy interests to donate to both Republican and Democratic candidates — so as not to be vulnerable to retribution for helping only the loser.) There is no practical, ethical, or historical reason to make the reporting of donations mandatory. Each candidate should decide for himself what his reporting policy will be. Every voter can then consider that policy when deciding whether to vote for him.

I agree with what Mr. Browne says but, it ain't how it is. We have a system and the LP can abide by it. Why doesn't the LP try and go for donations from these wealthy interests too, even if it is a smaller donation. I doubt they have even tried.
Campaign subsidies: Around $200 million of taxpayer money will go to the two major parties this year. Most third parties accept smaller sums from the government when they qualify — but Libertarians would be hypocrites if they condemned corporate and personal welfare and then accepted political welfare. I probably would have received close to a $1 million subsidy in the 2000 campaign (which would have increased the funds available by better than a third), but I obviously wouldn’t do so.

On this I agree with Mr. Browne. But, even in this, you can use to your advantage. You let people know, hey, we actually stand by what we say. Take advantage of every situation presented, it works.
The debates: The Debate Commission is comprised solely of Republicans and Democrats. Enough said.

It may just be me but, debates have never swayed my opinion. This just isn't that big of a deal. To counter this, hold small townhall meetings and explain just what it is your candidate stands for.
Ballot-access hurdles: The two old parties have placed enormous hurdles in the way of third-party candidates wanting to be on state ballots. In 2000, we raised $2.6 million. Of that $250,000 — almost 10% — was consumed just trying to get on the ballot in Pennsylvania and Arizona alone.

This is the only hurdle I think Mr. Browne makes a good point on. How to change it? Work within the system. The LP is gaining major footholds in local elections and the way to change these problems is, work from within. Get these laws changed and or updated.

The article goes on to say the good things the LP does. I won't go into them, I'll let you read it yourself and make your on decision on those.

If the Libertarian party really wants to make a difference in the politics of today, it needs to get into this day and age. This isn't the 50's where people studied the candidates and chose the one they thought was best, and this is unfortunate. They chose the one who speaks the loudest, and in a lot of cases, to their wallet.

Ronald Reagan

(CNN) -- Former President Ronald Reagan's health is deteriorating, according to sources familiar with the situation.

The 93-year-old former president had been diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease about a decade ago and began a retreat from public view.

According to sources familiar with the situation, the White House has been told Reagan's death could happen in "weeks or months."

The sources said they were told: "Don't be surprised if ... the time is getting close."

If you liked him, if you didn't, it will be a sad day when we lose this man.


It is sad to report but President Reagan died at just after 1pm. Actor, governor, President, a lot of words can be used to desribe this man but I think it is best said by Jon at

Thursday, June 03, 2004

George Soros

As bad as the things Soros said today, they don't compare to a commencement speech he gave on May 17 to the Columbia School of International & Public Affairs.

Why are we in trouble? Let me focus on the feature that looms so large in the current landscape -- the war on terror. September 11 was a traumatic event that shook the nation to its core. But it could not have changed the course of history for the worse if President Bush had not responded the way he did. Declaring war on terrorism was understandable, perhaps even appropriate, as a figure of speech.

"as a figure of speech"?
But the President meant it literally and that is when things started going seriously wrong.

How else was he to mean it other than literally? Oh, does he mean by doing what the previous administration did for 8 years? Talk a lot and do nothing?
Recently the nation has been shaken by another event: pictures of our soldiers abusing prisoners in Saddam's notorious prison. I believe there is a direct connection between the two events. It is the war on terror that has led to the torture scenes in Iraq. What happened in Abu Ghraib was not a case of a few bad apples but a pattern tolerated and even encouraged by the authorities.

Yes, there is a connection. If we wouldn't have done anything, these things wouldn't have happened. Of course, if would have done nothing, 25 million Iraqis wouldn't be free.

And yes, it is a case of a few bad apples. The military has no doctrine for the mistreatment of prisoners nor does it condone it. What happened when we found out these abuses were going on? Investigations, one man in jail and trials being set for the others.
It is not a popular thing to say, but the fact is that we are victims who have turned into perpetrators.

Give me a break. Maybe 12 out of 140,000 people did this. The regular soldier is sickened by this as are the officers.
If we had really cared for the Iraqi people we would have sent in more troops and we would have provided protection not only for the Ministry of Oil but also for the other Ministries and the museums and hospitals. As it is, the country was devastated by looting.

If we would have done what Soros said, we would have killed even more innocents, which he talked about earlier in this speech.

As for the museums, if Soros would have taken the time to actually look into this, he would have found only 7 artifacts were missing and they were sold my SH. Oops
I find the excuse that we went into Iraq in order to liberate it particularly galling. It is true that Saddam Hussein was a tyrant and it is good to be rid of him. But the way we went about it will make it more difficult to get rid of the likes of Saddam in the future. The world is full of tyrants and we cannot topple them all by military action. How to deal with Kim Jong-il in North Korea or Mugabe in Zimbabwe or the Turkmenbashi of Turkmenistan is the great, unsolved problem of the prevailing world order. By taking unilateral and arbitrary action, the United States has made it more difficult to solve that problem.

Unilateral? I think the 40 other nations who helped us would find this offensive. Arbitrary? 12 years, 17 resolutions. Unheard of human rights violations. This is arbitrary?

He is right in one respect. We can't use our military to expel all these tyrants. That's where diplomacy comes in. We can also support those who are fighting against these governments. SH had a chance to do the right thing, he played chicken, he lost.
We need to engage in some serious soul-searching. The terrorists seem to have hit upon a weak point in our collective psyche. They have made us fearful.

I disagree. I think what happened on 9/11 showed, even in a time of national disaster, our ability to unite as one people and say "no more". The weakness comes in when people sit and complain about us doing SOMETHING other than sitting on our hands.

Being the strongest we have a duty to the rest of the world. We need to stand up for those who are weaker than us, and if people like Soros can't see that that is exactly what we are doing, they are blind.

I could go on with picking this speech apart but, it's not worth it. Soros, coming out of communism, should know better yet, he supports groups like, says that Bush is as bad as hitler and on and on.

My question. Why do the democrats love this guy? Hey, they have a right to stand by anyone they want but, don't talk about moral superiority when you're standing in a pile of shit.

You can find the text to the speech here.

Wednesday, June 02, 2004

Too funny

I hope Jon, from QandO ,doesn't mind but, I lifted this from a debate group he and I are on together. The discussion was about Michael Moore and Jons quote is as follows:

- -I'm waiting for the new movie: "Celsius 250"

For those without a passing knowledge of Ray Bradbury, Moore's new movie,
and chemistry, let me translate: Fahrenheit 9/11 is based on the Ray Bradbury
anti-censorship book "Fahrenheit 451" - so called, because that was the
temperature at which paper burned.
Celsius 250 is the temperature at which fat burns.

Just saying.

This just cracked me up.


In the never ending story of placing blame where it doesn't belong I bring you this.

"A Portland lawyer says suffering by African Americans at the hands of slave owners is to blame in the death of a 2-year-old Beaverton boy. Randall Vogt is offering the untested theory, called post traumatic slave syndrome, in his defense of Isaac Cortez Bynum, who is charged with murder by abuse in the June 30 death of his son, Ryshawn Lamar Bynum. Vogt says he will argue -- 'in a general way' -- that masters beat slaves, so Bynum was justified in beating his son."

So, a man beat his 2 year old son to death and wants to put the blame on slavery. This is the most asinine defense I have ever heard. The problem, Bynum will probably get off using it.